Lal Babu Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.959 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2014 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Samastipur ====================================================== LAL BABU RAM Son of Kelu Ram @ Kailu Ram Resident of Village - Khatuaha, P.O.- Khairi, P.S.- Khanpur, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raja Ram Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ramesh Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 26-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Excise Case No.10 of 2014 registered for the offence punishable under section 47(a) of the Excise Act. As per allegation in the F.I.R., 80 litres of country liquor is stated to have been recovered from the road side and it is stated that the petitioner managed to escape. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no recovery has taken place from his person or possession and although the F.I.R. is of the year 2014, but having brought complete order sheet of the proceedings of the Court below on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.959 of 2020(3) dt.26-02-2020 2/2 record, it is submitted that he had no information about the pendency of the case.

The application for bail has been opposed by learned APP for the State. He submits that there is no just explanation for the petitioner to have moved for anticipatory bail after six years of lodging of the F.I.R. It is further submitted that the petitioner has yet another case under Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act pending against him, which he has mentioned in paragraph no.3 of his supplementary affidavit. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the antecedent of the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and as such the application for anticipatory bail is rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within four weeks.

(Partha Sarthy, J.) amit/- U T